Opiniones de usuarios

Before it careens into total silliness, `Fair Game' is a lot of fun. After the rather absurd attempted shooting of Crawford in the opening scene, `Fair Game' begins rather effectively examining the loss of privacy in the digital world, a fresh idea in 1995 (`Enemy of the State' didn't arrive till three years later). Crawford plays a lawyer specializing in civil cases. While helping one of his divorce clients she inadvertently falls under the scrutiny of a group of former KGB assassins. William Baldwin (`Backdraft')is the cop assigned to protect her. Baldwin looks like a cross between his brother Alec and Nicholas Cage; in other words, kind of goofy. Cindy Crawford looks like …well, Cindy Crawford, one of the world's most beautiful women. Crawford received some pretty bad raps for this movie. That's really unfair, but not surprising, considering Hollywood's experience with supermodels. In the 50s, they used to dub supermodel Suzy Parker. Crawford's considerably better than that. Her voice and line readings remind me of early Farrah Fawcett.

The big problem here is neither Crawford nor Baldwin. It's a script that would have us believe former KGB operatives would miss Crawford with a machine gun as she stands by a storefront with no cover. It's a script that would have us believe KGB agents would blow up Crawford's house with C4 to cover a COVERT operation. It's the script that would give Baldwin endless supplies of 9mm ammunition, while he leaves behind machine guns and `street sweepers'. It's a script that has the intelligent, sensible Crawford running from Baldwin, her only ally. It's a script that would have us believe the feisty Crawford would surrender without a fight, etc., etc.

Production values for `Fair Game' are top notch, great color photography, sound, music, editing and stunts. Had producer Joel Silver substituted Jackie Chan for Billy Baldwin, `Fair Game' would have made a first rate martial arts movie, even with its other shortcomings. ‘Course, I'm not sure Cindy Crawford would've `gotten naked' for Jackie Chan. Well, topless, anyway.

`Fair Game' is a `dumb blonde' of a movie, but Crawford is anything but dumb. She deserved better and deserves another opportunity to prove her mettle as an actress. If she made another movie, I'd go see it, even if she become closer to an "8" than a "10".

Nonetheless, `Fair Game' is, at worst, a `fair' movie. I give it a `5'.

Really bad and tedious with it. The mystery here was not who was trying to kill Cindy Crawford, but how her hair was magically dry and sexily tousled after a series of dunkings.

Cindy has exhibited better acting in lipstick commercials. And that scene where she uses her charms to persuade the geek in the computer shop to help her was reminiscent of Ginger trying to coax a coconut from Gilligan.

Silly from start to finish.

Leggy lawyer Cindy Crawford is attempting to get sleazy lawyer Dan Hedaya to admit that his client owns a certain boat.

Crawford shows Hedaya a picture of a boat. "Never heard of the *Tortuga*," he says.

"I didn't say the name," says Crawford.

Ha! Gotcha! Isn't she clever? Even though there was no reason--NONE--for Hedaya to say the name of the boat, he said it anyway. I mean, it doesn't even make any *sense* for him to say the name of the boat at this point. In the situation, it's virtually a *non sequitur*.

But he said it anyway! That's just how brilliant Ms. Crawford's character is.

And you know what? That's only a minor idiocy, like having Billy Baldwin claim that he's been on hold for 20 minutes when we can clearly hear that he's at the very beginning ("press 1, press 2") of one of those automated phone systems.

It gets worse...oh, so much worse. I mean, Cindy Crawford plays a brilliant lawyer, for God's sake!

Then there's the "infrared scope" scene, the stupidity of which is beyond my descriptive powers.

And am I wrong, or was "They did it on computers!" a really lame explanation for all this, even back in 1995?

And I have given up trying to understand how the bad guy's plan is supposed to work--I mean, what is killing one lawyer supposed to accomplish? Is the idea that she's the only lawyer in Florida who could get a judge to enforce an outstanding court order? Or is she supposed not to have put any of this information in her law firm's files? Or mentioned it to anyone else? Or filed any court papers? Or employed a single clerk or investigator on the case? You know, I really don't think these guys understand how the world works.

And since their plan is going to be completed in a very short time anyway, does it even matter? Wouldn't it have been smarter just to have sleazy lawyer Hedaya stall for a couple of days if necessary? It just doesn't make any sense!

And I absolutely refuse, for the sake of my own mental health, to even go into this "federal maritime court" nonsense.

It comes as no surprise to learn that idiot screenwriter Charlie Fletcher has only one other credit. Whether this is because he's too stupid even to gain employment in Hollywood, or smart enough to have changed his name, I don't know.

Idiot director Andrew Sipes (whose cinema career seems to have come to an abrupt and deserved end after he helmed this, his one and only movie) tries to add "excitement" to the first couple of "action" scenes by doing flash pans accompanied by "SHOOM!" noises, although he abandons this after the first couple of scenes and moves on to the even more clichéd slow-motion.

If anyone had been stupid enough to give Ed Wood a $50-million-dollar budget (and if anyone had been, it would have been idiot producer Joel Silver), this is the movie he would have made. If you enjoy repeatedly shouting "Oh, come ON!" at the screen, then you'll like this movie. If you want intelligent scripting, competent acting, exciting action, and skillful direction, look elsewhere.

Before I start the review, I would just like to point out that Fair Game is not entirely bad because of Cindy Crawford's performance. Her acting is one note and monotone, but that's not the real reason why the film is bad.

The plot is so illogical it makes no sense at all. We are told that Crawford's character, Kate McQuean, is a Lawyer who has been marked for death by the KGB, the reason being they could lose their ship in a court case that McQuean is pursuing. This kind of story line would belong in a courtroom drama, not an action film. And why are the villains the KGB? This was 1995; the KGB was irrelevant by then. The film itself is one long chase, and concentrates more on action instead of paying attention to character detail, which is another of the film's failings.

The action scenes are well-staged, and are the only good point to Fair Game. But there are certain questions raised; for a start, how could the villains use electronic equipment to track every move they make? Not to mention the use of a heat sensor, which can allow the villains to see everything they do (since when has such a thing ever existed?). And by the time the villains have finally captured McQuean, they are then instructed to 'keep the girl alive'; why? You've just spent the whole time trying to kill her, why not just get it done and out the way? Instead we have to watch the story get dragged out for longer. By this point, you'll be glad when it's all over.

Only worth watching if you're curious about Cindy Crawford's acting debut.

Garbage thriller notable only for the brief nudity of star Cindy Crawford. You kids today won't remember but this was a pretty big deal at the time among teenage boys. It's pretty tame by today's standards I guess. The movie itself is some thrown together by-the-numbers story about a cop (the always slimy William Baldwin) protecting a lawyer (Crawford) from a Russian out to kill her for a pretty stupid reason. If you're not interested in Crawford's looks there really is nothing to recommend about this. If you are interested, Cindy is certainly gorgeous throughout the picture, despite her limited acting ability. If you insist upon watching this I suggest muting it and keeping your free hand on the fast-forward button.

Can Cindy Crawford act? Not really, but well enough to scream and run from one overblown action scene to another, taking the odd breather for showers (plural) and changes of clothes.

I kind of enjoyed this brainless tosh. Cinders looks great, adequately playing an uncompromising, smarty-pants attorney. Baldwin is the cop determined to guard her body when people start trying to kill her. He just about pulls off the hardass cop routine, but never really musters the enthusiasm to look like he's enjoying it.

The bad guys glower and plot, hunting the fleeing pair down with ruthless skill (and some rather suspect computer trickery), then cocking things up each time allowing them to escape. It's hugely violent, fast moving, loud, full of swearing etc., all the things you associate with nineties action fodder, and finishes off with a big enough bang. Don't expect much, and you shouldn't be disappointed.

Oh, and if you're wondering about nudity, Cindy does indeed ‘get them out for the lads', and Baldwin shows his butt.

William Baldwin stars as a cop who protects a high powered attorney (Cindy Crawford in her career stopping performance!) from a group of terrorists who for some reason are looking to do our bubbleheaded attorney in. Believe it or not, Fair Game is actually an adaptation on a novel that inspired the underrated Cobra that was fascinating in it's right wing tendencies. Cobra had it's detractors and I think it rates at like 4.3 out of 10 so that goes to show you how B.movies tend to do in the IMDb polls. (Yet strangely, newer action movies pull of 5.5 ratings and anyone who thinks today's actioners are better than the 80's ones, are people I have no interest in knowing. This is a different rant for a different time.) Anyway Fair Game is quite possibly the Alone In The Dark of the 1990's. A laughable bomb which has Billy Baldwin (They could have at least given us Daniel!) at one point sighted with a rifle laser beam on his ass crack. Not since the The Punisher have we been treated to such gratuitous hairy man's ass and at least Dolph Lundgren had the decency to never show his ass again in a different movie. Fair Game plays less like an action flick and more like an ego trip for Cindy Crawford and Billy Baldwin. I was afraid that this wouldn't be as ridiculous as Cobra. I also feared that it would be bald on political statements. I was however wrong. Fair Game is equally as ridiculous as Cobra and it also has a political message. One that includes the idea that Crawford could actually make it into law school and second that it is important for sexy attorneys to take showers at regular intervals. Yes indeed. The reason Fair Game is so bad is it because it represents what is wrong with action movies as it comes from the "Bigger is better" school and although the explosions and action stock come from the assembly line, I think it is more important that we acknowledge that at one time there was a movie that said, not only can Cindy Crawford act but she can also play an intellectual who is a damn good lawyer too! I would say that Cindy Crawford is the worst actress to ever come from the modeling field but I can't because she is a notch above Anna Nicole Smith and one below Bo Derek. As for me I was laughing through out. Although I kind of feel sorry for the author, I never read the novel but i'm guessing this abortion of a movie won't be getting people out there to read the book. And they wonder why today's youth doesn't read anymore!

1/2* Out of 4-(Awful)

Note:Someone pointed out that indeed it was a woman not a man who wrote the novel.

Definitely not Oscar material, but a good late night watch. Lots of action and stunts. Cindy Crawford can't act, but who cares!? The plot involves some high tech Ruskies who are after Cindy, as F.B.I. Agent Billy Baldwin comes to the rescue. There is ensuing sexual tension.

Unwatchable dribble. I wish I had more to say to meet the 10 line minimum, but it really is just an awful waste of time. I suggest stapling your eyes open before attempting to watch this fine film. You could simulate the experience of watching this movie by randomly splicing together scenes from Miami Vice, and Tequeia sunrise, and still shots of a facial mole. In fact, that annoying mole on Cindy Crawford's lip is the best performance in the movie. Shoot still only 7 lines so far. Well another thing I could say this movie has going for it is it's running time, less than 3 hours. So I'm at 8 lines now. And this ought to just about do it. Summing up, a completely unwatchable waste of celluloid and time. THE END

I like Cindy Crawford. I really do. I respect the class she has maintained in an often classless fashion and modeling industry. But some people should stick to what they know.

Cindy, my God! In this movie, you were just in your lovely apartment overlooking the water. Your apartment is then blown up, you are blown off the balcony into the water, your cat is toast and all your possessions are gone. Oh, and by the way, a bunch of very bad people are now trying to shoot you dead. You get out of the cold water, run for your life and get taken to a safe house where the 2nd rate Baldwin asks you `How do you feel?' And Cindy says with the intensity of a heroin addict, `Like my life just exploded. What is this place, Motel Hell?' She said it like she was reading the phone book! A real actress would have been looking at the cop like he was nuts! And she would have delivered the lines accordingly. It got worse.

Did you see at the very first scene in the movie where Cindy's character is jogging and gets shot? Did you notice her slowing down to hit her mark and wait for the shot? I've never heard or seen anyone more stilted and lifeless except for a really bored telemarketer.

The writing was just BAD, and the movie was just about look how good Cindy looks after being dumped in water and having no shower. Notice her lips still had color? Did they have the long-lasting stuff back then?

Luckily it wasn't the kind of bad where you can't sit and laugh at it. You can sit and laugh at this one. In fact, you don't have a choice.

I am in love with Cindy Crawford. In common, I would have thought, with just about every heterosexual male old enough to remember the Golden Age of the Supermodel in the nineties. It's not just that Cindy is beautiful- although she must count as one of the loveliest women of her generation- but also that she possesses a grace and dignity which set her apart from certain other supermodels who are notable less for their modelling work than for their tempestuous sex lives, for their temper tantrums and for their addiction to alcohol, cocaine and blood diamonds. No names mentioned.

Blessed with the looks of a Hollywood goddess, Cindy evidently thought she would try to become one. She was not the only supermodel to have had this idea in the mid-nineties; Elle Macpherson and Naomi Campbell also tried their hand at acting around the same time. They, however, contented themselves with supporting roles (such as Elle's appearance as Blanche Ingram in Zeffirelli's version of "Jane Eyre"), whereas in "Fair Game" Cindy finds herself cast in a leading role. She stars as Kate McQuean, a Florida lawyer who inadvertently falls foul of the Russian mafia. As Kate has a civil law practice concentrating on divorce and no involvement with criminal law enforcement, exactly what she has done to upset them would take too long to explain here; suffice it to say that they want her dead. She is therefore forced to go on the run with Max Kirkpatrick, the police officer charged with protecting her.

Contrary to a widely held belief, beauty alone is not enough to make you a film star. At any given time there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of aspiring young wannabes in Hollywood, nearly all of them strikingly attractive. The few who make it to the top must, therefore, have something more than their beauty to set them apart from their less successful rivals, and that something is normally a modicum of real talent. (Although in a few cases an influential or well-connected husband or boyfriend will suffice, thus accounting for the fact that some attractive but genuinely talentless actresses have enjoyed quite lengthy careers at the top. Again, no names mentioned).

Much as I love Cindy, I have to admit that genuine talent is something she lacks, at least as far as acting is concerned. One critic said of this film that "One could scavenge the thesaurus to find synonyms for 'awkward' to describe Crawford's performance," although actually "awkward" would be perhaps a milder criticism than many people would use. The lovely Cindy, I'm afraid, spends the entire film looking as though she has no idea what she is doing. She was nominated for a Worst Actress Razzie, but lost out to Elizabeth Berkeley for her role in "Showgirls". (Actually, whatever one might think about the merits of Paul Verhoeven's film, Berkeley's performance is a lot more animated and lively than Crawford's).

One cannot, however, place the blame for the failure of this film on Cindy alone, or even on the standards of acting alone. (William Baldwin is not as wooden as his co-star, but even so he still, on this evidence, has a lot to do before he can live down the accusation that he is not even the best actor in his family). The film was made in 1995, several years after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, but Hollywood was still pursuing its own private cold war against all things Russian.

The old cliché of Russians as villainous communists was simply replaced by a new cliché of Russians as villainous fascists or villainous gangsters; the main baddie here is a former Colonel in the KGB. (See also "Crimson Tide", "GoldenEye", "The Peacemaker", "Air Force One", etc.) This new cliché did not end with the nineties. By chance "Fair Game" was shown on British television on the same evening as "Salt", made as recently as 2010. Although "Salt" is a better film than "Fair Game", it still relies on the sort of Russophobic prejudices which should have come down with the Berlin Wall nearly a quarter of a century ago. Salt, however, does have a decent plot- indeed, a rather ingenious one- something which "Fair Game" totally lacks. What storyline it possesses is little more than an excuse for repeated scenes of gunfire, explosions, and Kate and Max running for their lives pursued by the baddies, all leading up to a totally predictable ending. It is hardly surprising that Cindy did not go on to a major film career. 3/10

The 'action' crowd - much like the 'horror' crowd - is an awfully forgiving bunch: probably due to expectations that are already pitifully low, they seem happy to get whatever they're handed, no matter how clichéd, derivative, and/or poorly acted/directed it may be. If they're men - particularly straight men - they often say, with puffed-up chest, that they don't care about "crap" like acting, writing, directing, or anything else. They just want good action and lots of it. Don't get me wrong: I like action flicks myself! But what's wrong with expecting something in the way of quality? It's probably far too late in the game to look forward to originality in the Action genre, so why is it too much to ask for, say, clever writing, inventive stunts, crackling-good dialogue, solid acting, and direction that doesn't look phoned-in? "Fair Game", essentially a remake of a painfully funny 1986 turkey, "Cobra", starring Sylvester Stallone and then-bride, hulking she-beast Brigitte Nielsen, tells the story of a beautiful lawyer and a studly cop being chased by baddies. Many people die and even more things blow up in the process. The cop is played by William Baldwin; the lawyer by model Cindy Crawford, in her acting debut. From the film's outset, they are at odds, but it doesn't require a Master's Degree to figure out they're going to get along JUST FINE before the end. This is one of those films where, in the midst of being chased endlessly by a ruthless band of Russian thieves, the two leads find time to disrobe and get intimate. Just like real life. It's also the type of film in which, no matter how brutally our leads get beaten, or how bruised and battered and bloodied they be, they somehow manage to look merely tousled and none worse for the wear. Just like real life. As for those Russian baddies, you KNOW they're bad because they ARE, after all, Russian, and in Hollywood you know what THAT means: one of them will be a steroid-riddled she-male (kind of like former WWE star, Joanie "Chyna" Laurer). That role this time belongs to Jenette Goldstein, best known as that fabulously butch soldier in "Aliens". In "Fair Game" you KNOW she's not to be messed with because: 1) she's outfitted in bulky black leather, 2) she speaks with a generic Eurotrash accent and says "witty" things like "Let mama make it feel better!" while beating up Baldwin, and, most importantly, 3) she's given a brutal haircut and has bright red lipstick slashed across her downturned mouth. It's like she's fresh from playing a warden in a women-in-prison flick! Alas, these camp moments provide the only levity in a pretty sad affair, made none the better by its stars, who share absolutely ZERO CHEMISTRY. Baldwin is his usual self: pretty. Cindy Crawford is also HER usual self: pretty. And therein might lie the problem: they're both stunningly pretty, which makes the action less-than-believable, somehow. (In fact, HE'S even prettier than SHE is!) Action stars should have a little roughness, if not overtly then around the edges. Runway-model beauty is fine for drama and romantic comedy but an action flick? It just doesn't seem to work, at least not here. It sure ain't helped by a hapless director who seems intent on pleasing both his stars by maintaining his stars' prettiness at all costs, even when the effect is downright comical. (As mentioned earlier, they come through fights, brawls, gunshots, whippings, you name it, with only the teensiest of scratches on maybe an arm but never - and I mean NEVER - on the face. Just like real life.) Baldwin has never really been much of an actor, and he often seems to have little, if any, chemistry with his female co-stars (perhaps because he's usually prettier than them?), but I suppose he tries his manful best to give a credible performance (or at least as credible as is possible with this movie). As for Crawford, well...bless her heart, she tries. She really, really tries. Unfortunately, as soon as she opens her mouth to say her first line, the truth becomes achingly obvious: she simply cannot act. You give the poor girl credit for trying, but let's face it: in what bizarre alternate universe would YOU believe Cindy Crawford to be a high-priced, amazingly successful lawyer? To make up for this and other mistakes, the makers decide to throw in explosions and gunshots almost at random, or whenever the tempo slows. They even manage to throw in some violence during a lovemaking scene (on a freight train, no less). Said lovemaking reaches the levels of "The Specialist" at its robotic best: she flashes her breast, he shows his posterior, and the lighting in the freight car goes all cool blue as they bump, grind, and gnash their teeth in imagined ecstasy. Then, suddenly, a gunman arrives to take care of our 'heroes'. However, said gunman is quite the gentleman because even though he has the clearest shot in the world, he waits patiently for Crawford to see him, pick up a conveniently placed gun, and shoot him. What a guy! In fact, MOST of the bad guys here do the same thing, again and again: run up to fire at their target, then pause while Baldwin or Crawford can shoot first. It's refreshing to see that even though they're Russian, they have such an incredible sense of manners! But who watches this stuff for manners, anyway? You want action and blowin' up and killin' and shootin'? You'll get it here. All the time. Even when there's no reason for it. You want Cindy Crawford in an ever-shrinking tank top? You get that, too. (Body-conscious female viewers might want to keep that in mind next time they're being chased by international killers: make sure to wear pre-shrunk tank tops.) But if it's fun you're after, look elsewhere. Goodness knows I wish I had!

I see lots of reviews criticising the acting and the plot and I wonder what people were expecting from q film starring William Baldwin and Cindy Crawford? It's a thriller, an hour and a half of action and entertainment, nothing more. It isn't meant to be highbrow or get nominated for an Oscar. For what it is it works well enough and is enjoyable, so why be so picky and pretend you were expecting something spectacular. William Baldwin gives a standard action performance, Cindy Crawford is perfectly acceptable and Steven Berkoff is relatively restrained. As for the plot, it is simple and easy to follow and so what if it isn't the massively intricate and complex affair that some might prefer? So it was a little predictable and William Baldwin's heroics a little unrealistic - so what? The only question to be asked about movies of this kind is, "was it enjoyable.?" As far as I am concerned, yes it was - and that's all that matters.

I'm seriously surprised this movie cost fifty million dollars. Who knows what they spent it on...

The entire premise of the movie makes no sense. The villain only needs two days to complete his so-called plan, yet he's worried about the lawyer having the boat seized... even if she could get a court order to have it seized immediately, the villain could just pull the boat out into international waters and nobody could seize it until it pulled into port.

Action scenes I guess are exciting, despite the fact the make no sense whatsoever. I love the scene where they're being fired on by people who can somehow manage to hit the windows but not the people inside nor anything vital to keepinbg the car running. Apparently the same marksmen who were in "Behind Enemy Lines."

Even if you're just hoping to see Cindy Crawford naked, forget it. One time she is it's so badly lit you can't see anything. And likely it's just a body double anyway.

On the plus side, is so stupid it's funny to watch. Almost every scene here is good for a laugh, except for the ones that are actually supposed to be funny.

In my opinion most blockbusters are watchable movies. Some are good, some are not so good. Some are even quite bad, but they try so hard to offer something for everyone that there usually are at least some things in the movie you like. But because they do offer something for everyone, they usually also have some things you don't like. However, once in a while a film comes along which focuses solely on it's own target audience. Sometimes the critics and fans of so-called 'quality cinema' are the target audience. In those cases we have films like "American Beauty". Sometimes fans of sex-related teen-comedies are the target audience and we have a film like "American Pie". And sometimes fans of pure action-entertainment are the target audience and we have a film like "Fair Game".

This is a film which most people have a strong opinion of. Others love it while others hate it. What's interesting is that the reasons for the opinion of the film are the same for both people. Others hate it because it's unbelievably dumb, excessively violent, has an unoriginal plot, stupid dialogue and has no good actors. However, others love it for the same reasons. And I'm one of those people.

The film is based on Paula Gosling's novel of the same name. It's interesting to notice that Sylvester Stallone's actioner "Cobra" was also based on the same novel but the films have very little in common. About the only thing they share is the hate of the critics and the love of action-fans. What's even more interesting is that Stallone was originally attached to this film as well.

Anyway, about this film.. While it's true that no-one has been able to make a good macho-actioner since the 80s (except Steven Seagal and even he is now making films like "The Patriot"), this is a quality effort if there ever was one. This has everything I want (a macho cop as the hero, a sexy woman as his sidekick, lots of action and gratuitous violence) and nothing I don't (a deep and original plot, Academy Award-winning actors, emotional scenes between mom and daughter...). Actually many scenes here are so stupid that they could be considered campy and even if you aren't a fan of the genre, you might enjoy laughing at the movie's unintentional humor.

One of the things which always means a lot to me in films is the score and "Fair Game" has one of the best scores I've ever heard. I liked Mark Mancina's score to "Speed" and "Bad Boys" but they're nothing compared to this. A brilliant main theme combined with excellent underscore. Full marks.

There is also the traditional "You killed my partner. Big mistake, you hear me? Wanna know why? Because I'm gonna come and get every last one of you!"-threat from Baldwin. I love those lines, I really do. "Cobra" was filled with them and the mid-80s was a good time for macho-actioners.

In fact, "Fair Game" is like a throwback to the 80s, when Joel Silver still made good actioners (Commando, Action Jackson, Die Hard, Road House - all brilliant). Of course it's not intelligent. Of course it's not original. Of course it's not a film which makes people think about their lives. It is pure action-entertainment, nothing more and nothing less. This will definitely appeal to fans of "Cobra", "Action Jackson" and the early Steven Seagal-films. However, if you don't like action, pure action and nothing but the action - skip it. Even if you liked films like "Speed" and "Face/Off", you might not like this.

Gunfights, explosions, gratuitous violence, gratuitous nudity (from Cindy Crawford, no less!), a brilliant score..what more could a guy who loves action ask? Definitely a 10.

The story line is OK if entertainment is what you are after. There are a lot of holes in continuity and in the graphics. With a small leap of imagination and remembering entertainment is what we are pursuing. this is an enjoyable film........... and deserves Kudos for the pyrotechnics.